The Finley Hospital v. NLRB, No. 15-2285 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseThe Hospital challenged the Board's decision affirming an ALJ's finding that the Hospital violated sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(5) and (1). The court agreed with the Hospital that the Board erred in holding that the one-year-long collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the Union established a status quo of annual, compounded raises that, under the NLRA, must be continued after the agreement's expiration. In this case, the plain language of the CBA does not, as the Board states, provide for periodic wage increases or annual raises; rather, the language sets forth a straight forward, singular pay increase on a particular day during the one-year contract. Therefore, the new salary at the time the CBA expired, not the alleged practice of 3% annual pay raises, is the status quo that must be maintained throughout negotiations. Because the Hospital did not violate section 158(a)(5) by discontinuing annual pay raises, the Hospital also did not violate section 158(a)(1) by informing employees that it would no longer give annual pay raises after the expiration of the CBA. Accordingly, the court granted the Hospital's petition for review and set aside the portion of the Board's order regarding the Hospital's discontinuance of annual pay raises.
Court Description: Beam, Author, with Murphy and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - National Labor Relations Board. The parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement did not establish a status quo of, and thus a statutory right to, annual 3% raises, and the Hospital did not violate 29 U.S.C. Sec. 158(a)(5) by discontinuing annual pay raises; nor did the Hospital violate 29 U.S.C. Sec. 158(a)(1) by informing employees that it would no longer give annual pay raises after the expiration of the Collective Bargaining Act; the Hospital's petition for review is granted, and the Board's order regarding the discontinuance of pay raises is set aside. Judge Murphy, dissenting.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.